Where the infrastructure money goes

[Taunton]

Many are the comments about where the money goes on NR infrastructure, so the recent RAIB report into last year's Lewisham derailment sheds a bit of light on the organisational structure. As ever with RAIB reports, you have to read between the lines of what they describe.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a9561ffe5274a5b849d3b3a/180228_R042018_Lewisham.pdf

It involves Network Rail. It's their line. They identified the track at this point needed replacing, which was done shortly before the derailment. Time was when this would involve the relevant local NR engineers, who would identify and design it, their work crews, and a NR workshop that manufactured the relevant parts.

Here, NR have created a further organisation, the S&C South Alliance. This joins together NR themselves, Aecom, and Colas Rail. Quite why NR need to subcontract work down to a second organisation which they are already part of is not apparent, although if you search the Internet there is an awful lot of wiffle-waffle about how it "enhances the deliverability". Presumably this was kept quiet about after the derailment.

Now the report says that Aecom do the design, and NR approve the design. So one of the supposed benefits of a separate organisation is lost because it still all has to go back to the principals as well. Colas actually do the site work, which is fair enough, except that it seems they then generally subcontract to actual doers of the work. But we then read that Vossloh (who we once knew as Grant Rail in Scunthorpe) were sub-subcontracted to do the design, along with the manufacture. So what did Aecom do in all this, apart from collect a percentage fee? And what has the S&C South Alliance itself done that NR could not do directly? Because there seems a double handling between the two.

And despite all these layers of engineers, organisations, and cost ... the job is not done right. And there's a derailment.

 

[HowardGWR]

And despite all these layers of engineers, organisations, and cost ... the job is not done right. And there's a derailment.

I suppose the real question is whether one should substitute 'because of' for 'despite' in your sentence?

 

[edwin_m]

The idea of the alliance structure is to avoid the sort of "man-marking" that goes on in more traditional contracts - the intention is that everyone pulls together as one team regardless of their parent organisation (apologies for buzzword overload). I've been involved in a small way in various Alliance work (not related to this junction) and when it works properly it does seem to be more effective than the traditional confrontational approach in the construction industry. The Norton Bridge junction work was done under an Alliance and seems to have been successful, and the Metrolink extensions had some of the features of an Alliance too - compare and contrast with the Edinburgh tram construction.

 

[aylesbury]

Roger Ford in the latest Modern Railways has written an excellent article about NR,s costing and delivery, most of the figures are eye watering and you have to wonder if they have any cost controls in place.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slightly perplexed by the OPs post.

I have been involved in track renewals, on and off, for over two decades, since early Railtrack days. In that time, S&C track design has usually been done by a contractor. It certainly was when I managed it. Delivery has almost always been by a contractor - only recently has the high output plain line renewals come in house. NR has never owned S&C manufacturing facilities.

As far as I am aware, this is the same as it has been since privatisation in 1994.

The principle of the S&C alliance (or indeed any similar alliance) is that it is brings together expertise from specialist organisations to work as a team. It reduces contractual interfaces, aligns incentives, reduces man marking (person marking, strictly), and in my experience of working with them (and without them) unquestionably delivers better value for money and better output.

On a technical point, NR doesn’t contract with the S&C alliance. It has contracts with the relevant partners, and an alliancing agreement is then signed between the partners.

 

[Flying Phil]

I must say that I am very impressed with the thoroughness of the RAIB investigation. It is no wonder that our railways are so safe these days.

 

[DarloRich]

Slightly perplexed by the OPs post.

I have been involved in track renewals, on and off, for over two decades, since early Railtrack days. In that time, S&C track design has usually been done by a contractor. It certainly was when I managed it. Delivery has almost always been by a contractor - only recently has the high output plain line renewals come in house. NR has never owned S&C manufacturing facilities.

As far as I am aware, this is the same as it has been since privatisation in 1994.

The principle of the S&C alliance (or indeed any similar alliance) is that it is brings together expertise from specialist organisations to work as a team. It reduces contractual interfaces, aligns incentives, reduces man marking (person marking, strictly), and in my experience of working with them (and without them) unquestionably delivers better value for money and better output.

On a technical point, NR doesn’t contract with the S&C alliance. It has contracts with the relevant partners, and an alliancing agreement is then signed between the partners.

Good and correct detail - But why should the facts get in the way of a rant.

Roger Ford in the latest Modern Railways has written an excellent article about NR,s costing and delivery, most of the figures are eye watering and you have to wonder if they have any cost controls in place.

But does the mighty Roger Ford offer any analysis or commentary of why that should be the case?

 

[XDM]

I am not going to be popular saying this but here goes.
Network Rail is a huge organisation spending about 12% of the national infrastructure bill annually. It spends much of it with many different contractors. And it has so overspent & so undelivered consistently throughout its existence & so damaged the possibilities of our railway network that questions are entitled to be asked.
It is hard to believe that a small percentage of those placing contracts, who are obviously on friendly terms with the people they are checking & paying, have not taken kickbacks. Yet not a single NR manager has been investigated or charged. That seems unusual for the mountains of money they spend.
No offence meant to the decent people who work for NR. It must be as galling for them, as for those who care about the industry. And the have to work alongside the occasional NR big time crook.

 

[XDM]

Can I add that I do not want my post to divert from Taunton's excellent analysis & questions. It is well worth a second read.
What was the point of Aecom in the Lewisham job apart from adding yet another percentage to the cost & intricacy of the job? Any suggestions from DarloRich for example?
The last line of my post above should read. And these decent NR people have to work alongside the occasional NR big time crook.

 

[Ploughman]

Slightly perplexed by the OPs post.

I have been involved in track renewals, on and off, for over two decades, since early Railtrack days. In that time, S&C track design has usually been done by a contractor. It certainly was when I managed it. Delivery has almost always been by a contractor - only recently has the high output plain line renewals come in house. NR has never owned S&C manufacturing facilities.

As far as I am aware, this is the same as it has been since privatisation in 1994.

The principle of the S&C alliance (or indeed any similar alliance) is that it is brings together expertise from specialist organisations to work as a team. It reduces contractual interfaces, aligns incentives, reduces man marking (person marking, strictly), and in my experience of working with them (and without them) unquestionably delivers better value for money and better output.

On a technical point, NR doesn’t contract with the S&C alliance. It has contracts with the relevant partners, and an alliancing agreement is then signed between the partners.

Similar to myself but I think I started and finished earlier.
In the early 90's any S+C Design was done by CEDG at York This eventually became owned by British Steel and TATA.
S+C Assembly yards were at Crofton and Heywood but there were some components manufactured at a site near Edinburgh, mainly Glued joints for IBJ's.
In our Renewals office we designed some of the plain line work, to maintain a skill level, but most of the sites were designed by a number of different survey houses. I think a similar situation applied to the In House S+C team with the majority of their renewal sites being designed by sub contractor.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Edinburgh site is VAE Baileyfield, a division of voestalpine AG.

The other big S&C manufacturer is Balfours at Beeston, Notts. Googlemaps has a great view. There are a lot of suppliers across Europe, and as far as I know not one of them is a national railway infrastructure operator.

 

[3973EXL]

The Edinburgh site is VAE Baileyfield, a division of voestalpine AG.

The other big S&C manufacturer is Balfours at Beeston, Notts. Googlemaps has a great view. There are a lot of suppliers across Europe, and as far as I know not one of them is a national railway infrastructure operator.

The S&C is made at Sandiacre by Progress Rail, used to be Balfours. They also have the Beeston site for assembly of layouts.

Network Rail are also present at Beeston, Modular S&C depot.

There is also Vossloh Cogifer at Scunthorpe.

 

[Bald Rick]

The S&C is made at Sandiacre by Progress Rail, used to be Balfours. They also have the Beeston site for assembly of layouts.

Network Rail are also present at Beeston, Modular S&C depot.

There is also Vossloh Cogifer at Scunthorpe.

Thanks - I knew things had moved on a little, but wasn’t sure how!

 

[D365]

I am not going to be popular saying this but here goes.

That's quite an accusation to be making, have you got any sources to back up your claims? In my experience, ethics policies within the industry are very robust. The consequences of any misdoing are made very clear.

 

[Elecman]

That's quite an accusation to be making, have you got any sources to back up your claims? In my experience, ethics policies within the industry are very robust. The consequences of any misdoing are made very clear.

If he has why hasn’t he gone to the Police with his evidence? No one should make such claims in public without hard evidence and then only after supplying same to the Police , and after thier full investigations.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am not going to be popular saying this but here goes.
Network Rail is a huge organisation spending about 12% of the national infrastructure bill annually. It spends much of it with many different contractors. And it has so overspent & so undelivered consistently throughout its existence & so damaged the possibilities of our railway network that questions are entitled to be asked.
It is hard to believe that a small percentage of those placing contracts, who are obviously on friendly terms with the people they are checking & paying, have not taken kickbacks. Yet not a single NR manager has been investigated or charged. That seems unusual for the mountains of money they spend.
No offence meant to the decent people who work for NR. It must be as galling for them, as for those who care about the industry. And the have to work alongside the occasional NR big time crook.

Any evidence to back this up? Didn’t think so.

I have read about several investigations, and convictions, indeed the (mandatory) NR business ethics training explains a couple. And not just of managers, it happens lower down the organisation too. But don’t be under the illusion this is specific to Network Rail. Pretty much every large organisation has a few bad apples.

 

[D365]

I have read about several investigations, and convictions, indeed the (mandatory) NR business ethics training explains a couple.

I was rather taken aback when it came to my first full-time job, I didn't realise that the examples given were indeed real..!

 

[Tio Terry]

I am not going to be popular saying this but here goes.
Network Rail is a huge organisation spending about 12% of the national infrastructure bill annually. It spends much of it with many different contractors. And it has so overspent & so undelivered consistently throughout its existence & so damaged the possibilities of our railway network that questions are entitled to be asked.
It is hard to believe that a small percentage of those placing contracts, who are obviously on friendly terms with the people they are checking & paying, have not taken kickbacks. Yet not a single NR manager has been investigated or charged. That seems unusual for the mountains of money they spend.
No offence meant to the decent people who work for NR. It must be as galling for them, as for those who care about the industry. And the have to work alongside the occasional NR big time crook.

I'm retired now but I worked in the railway industry for 53 years, firstly with BR and lately with other railway industry company's, especially NetworkRail. For much of that time I held relatively senior positions and had financial sign-off authority for quite large sums. Only twice in all that time was a suggestion made that I could benefit personally for agreeing to an extra payment. In the first case, having reported it up the management chain, the individual concerned was dismissed by the Contractor. In the second, the company was removed from the Approved Contractor list and, eventually, ceased trading. From my experience, BR, Railtrack and NR Managers are acutely aware that they are spending public money and that any suggestion of any sort of impropriety will result in suspension at the very least. When BR was privatised and became Railtrack there was an influx of "new blood" based on the view that old BR managers were not what the new management needed, there were a few cases of new managers not following the rules and some lost their jobs quite quickly. NR are on top of the job, the guidelines are well known and what is, and is not, acceptable in terms of "freebies" everybody knows. The GRIP processes that govern Project Management are adhered to and the checks and double checks are signed off by more then one person, it is a good and reliable control mechanism.

 

[DarloRich]

I am not going to be popular saying this but here goes.
Network Rail is a huge organisation spending about 12% of the national infrastructure bill annually. It spends much of it with many different contractors. And it has so overspent & so undelivered consistently throughout its existence & so damaged the possibilities of our railway network that questions are entitled to be asked.
It is hard to believe that a small percentage of those placing contracts, who are obviously on friendly terms with the people they are checking & paying, have not taken kickbacks. Yet not a single NR manager has been investigated or charged. That seems unusual for the mountains of money they spend.
No offence meant to the decent people who work for NR. It must be as galling for them, as for those who care about the industry. And the have to work alongside the occasional NR big time crook.

There is plenty I could add to this thread but I am not going to after such silly, digesting and insulting comments as set out above. Outrageous.

 

[lineclear]

But we then read that Vossloh (who we once knew as Grant Rail in Scunthorpe) were sub-subcontracted to do the design, along with the manufacture. So what did Aecom do in all this, apart from collect a percentage fee?

The manufacturer designs the S&C detail based on the geometry provided by the design organisation. The manufacturer produces a 1:50 drawing of the S&C that is to be manufactured; the various design disciplines produce drawings (and other deliverables) detailing the work that is to take place throughout the whole renewal site.

 

[Taunton]

There is plenty I could add to this thread but I am not going to

I think I agree with you. Inefficiency of various sorts we can discuss, and where there are significant sums around all sorts of organisations want to insert themselves in the chain (I'm surprised the major accountancy/business consultancies have not convinced the DfT to insert themselves in the process) but I do not believe the works have in any way had any significant "brown envelope" issues.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Any evidence to back this up? Didn’t think so.

I have read about several investigations, and convictions, indeed the (mandatory) NR business ethics training explains a couple. And not just of managers, it happens lower down the organisation too. But don’t be under the illusion this is specific to Network Rail. Pretty much every large organisation has a few bad apples.

You're right: this kind of problem is not unique to the railway. But that does not mean that we can all peacefully assume there is nothing to guard against. You mention convictions. Tio Terry in post 18 refers to two occasions when he was approached with an offer.

We should remember it takes two to tango and that a corrupt person on the outside needs a partner on the inside. The instigator is at risk when sounding out prospective partners because if he has misjudged his target and that target goes to the police, the instigator will be ruined. Once that major hurdle is passed, the door is open for continuing business and continuing gross overcharging.

Any alert person can notice highly suspect activity and highly suspect astronomical prices. But, other than the police, only someone on the inside can uncover evidence. The fact that outsiders can't prove anything does not mean there is nothing to worry about. Those of us who have been round the track a few times and have learned the ways of the world and that there are some people who will do anything for money will always be suspicious about repeated instances of seemingly extortionate charges being paid with public money.

I hope post 8 is wide of the mark but I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. It is plausible.

 

[snowball]

There's an allegation in Wolmar's column in the current issue of Rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hope post 8 is wide of the mark but I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand. It is plausible.

Sorry, the bit I was questioning was that there has been no investigations or charges.

I know, personally, of 3 people who have been investigated, charged, and spent time in one of Her Majesty’s hotels. All have been found out through internal checks and balances (internal audit), rather than a whistleblower.

I’ve no doubt it goes on, but the people who do it are invariably caught. To claim that the reason costs are high is that it goes on every where is frankly offensive to the 99.9% of us who do the job properly.

 

[3141]

It is hard to believe that a small percentage of those placing contracts, who are obviously on friendly terms with the people they are checking & paying, have not taken kickbacks. Yet not a single NR manager has been investigated or charged. That seems unusual for the mountains of money they spend.

The passage I've quoted from XDM's post #8 is the only point where he makes allegations of dishonesty. The more important issue is the huge rise in costs, which as we know has killed off some electrification schemes and caused others to be left incomplete. In last month's Modern Railways Roger Ford drew attention to the huge increases in the costs of projects to improve capacity on the East Coast Main Line, as a result of which some of them seem unlikely to get done. Outrage by people working in the industry at a suggestion of dishonesty shouldn't conceal the seriousness of those high costs if they make important and even essential schemes unaffordable.

I would expect Network Rail to have rigorous tender evaluation procedures, and tender awards not to be made by the people who have a close working relationship with the companies that submit tenders. There may perhaps be scope for irregularities when it comes to payments, and it's understandable that dishonesty is one of the possible explanations that come to mind when one looks at the way costs have risen. "Goldplating" and an assumption that someone will produce the money to pay for it may be an alternative explanation. Unfortunately, despite some successfully-managed schemes like Reading Station, the focus will be on those that have gone seriously wrong, some of which are major and very high profile. We are not going to get a railway system fit to meet the demands we're placing on it if costs are not brought down.

 

[Taunton]

Inefficiency includes providing estimates which turn out to be way out of kilter with actuality, with no detailed justification of why.

I am also perplexed how, despite Crossrail having been under way for years, and having built all the major bits pretty much to time, NR seem not to have even started the simple elements down to them, notably the platform extensions east and west, until the last minute, even then not progressing them to schedule, and as a result the trains have to run foreshortened for a while.

I'm reminded of Brunel, who through a friend knew Florence Nightingale at her dreadful hospital in the Crimean War, whereupon the government asked him to design a better hospital, which he launched into, drawings, assembled major materials at the docks, etc, only to then find for the small fitout stores, which at the beginning he had asked the government department to provide, that they had not even started to procure them. He was, in his inimitable way, furious.

 

[Ianno87]

Inefficiency includes providing estimates which turn out to be way out of kilter with actuality, with no detailed justification of why.

I am also perplexed how, despite Crossrail having been under way for years, and having built all the major bits pretty much to time, NR seem not to have even started the simple elements down to them, notably the platform extensions east and west, until the last minute, even then not progressing them to schedule, and as a result the trains have to run foreshortened for a while.

I'm reminded of Brunel, who through a friend knew Florence Nightingale at her dreadful hospital in the Crimean War, whereupon the government asked him to design a better hospital, which he launched into, drawings, assembled major materials at the docks, etc, only to then find for the small fitout stores, which at the beginning he had asked the government department to provide, that they had not even started to procure them. He was, in his inimitable way, furious.

Wasn't Network Rail responsible for (amongst other things) the Acton Yard diveunder and Stockley flyover, both substantial pieces of infrastructure, which as far as I'm aware were delivered on time and on budget? NR's part of Crossrail's delivery amounts to far more than a few platform extensions...

 

[D365]

Wasn’t the plan always to run seven car 345s under the TfL Rail moniker?

The only reason why this is being done west of Paddington is because of the H&H bay platform.